Impeding Obstruction Whatever and When

[david58]

Yesterday my kids played in a jamboree, where they played three 40 minute matches. It was very interesting the number of "obstruction" calls made during the matches - it is actually a common call by refs in this particular local association, especially among those that ref hs primarily.

One player in shoulder-to-shoulder contact pushes another away from the ball, 5-6 yards off the ball.

A player wants to move to his left to go to the ball, and an opponent is in his way and kind of backs into him to prevent that turn to the ball - again, not in playing distance.

There were 4-5 more similar calls, all involving contact off the ball.

My understanding that obstruction (impeding in normal-speak) does not involve contact. If we have contact, we have either holding, pushing, or an unfair charge. Is my understanding correct?

And yes, my coach hat has a tendency to obscure the referee part of my brain...

[AlsoRan]

Impeding can include "non-violent contact". I would copy the relevant update to the 2006 ATR, but as you know, cut and paste is not permissable. But it is the update to section 12.14 if you care to look. Nevertheless, the sanction for an otherwise fair charge not in playing distance of the ball is an IFK, same-same.

[PVancouver]

This is the text of ATR 12.14 from 1998-2005 versions, with 2006 additions indicated by bold italics.

12.14 IMPEDING AN OPPONENT
Impeding the progress of an opponent" means moving on the field so as to obstruct, interfere with, or block the path of an opponent. Impeding can include crossing directly in front of the opponent or running between the opponent and the ball so as to form an obstacle with the aim of delaying progress. There will be many occasions during a game when a player will come between an opponent and the ball, but in the majority of such instances, this is quite natural and fair. It is often possible for a player not playing the ball to be in the path of an opponent and still not be guilty of impeding.

The offense of impeding an opponent requires that the ball not be within playing distance or not capable of being played, and that physical contact between the player and the opponent is normally absent. If physical contact occurs, the referee should, depending on the circumstances, consider instead the possibility that a charging infringement has been committed (direct free kick) or that the opponent has been fairly charged off the ball (indirect free kick, see Advice 12.22). However, nonviolent physical contact may occur while impeding the progress of an opponent if, in the opinion of the referee, this contact was an unavoidable consequence of the impeding (due, for example, to momentum).
The sentence "If physical contact occurs, the referee should, depending on the circumstances, consider instead the possibility that a charging infringement has been committed (direct free kick) or that the opponent has been fairly charged off the ball (indirect free kick, see Advice 12.22)." is highly contorted, but has been around for years.

The sentence states that if physical contact occurs, then the referee should consider that one of two things may have occurred, presumably instead of, impeding. The two possibilities are limited to "charging" and "fairly charging off the ball". What about "pushing" or "holding" or "jumping"?

What is "fairly charged off the ball"? Well, this really means "charged in a way that would be considered fair had it occurred within playing distance of the ball", and 12.22 tells us that this should be treated as impeding. In short, this is actually another case where there is contact but the foul is impeding.

I believe impeding is called much less often that it otherwise would be because people think that if there is contact it cannot be impeding, largely because of the wording of ATR 12.14. In my mind, if the primary intent of the fouler's play is to get in or stay in the way of the other player's path to the ball, impeding should be called.

However, if a player "backs into" another player, and pushes him hard in the process, it more likely should be considered pushing. Despite what 12.22 says, I would think "off the ball" charging might also be considered pushing.
If both players are "otherwise fairly charging off the ball", and neither is successful at pushing the other player away from the ball, then I suppose nothing should be called.

In your case the player was only "kinda" backing into another player, so perhaps impeding was in fact the best call.

If a slow player intentionally gets inbetween the ball and a fast player while both players race toward the ball, I don't think impeding should be called, unless the slow player intentionally moves to block the fast player as the fast player tries to pass the slow player.

[USSF REF]

This is the text of ATR 12.14 from 1998-2005 versions, with 2006 additions indicated by bold italics.

The sentence states that if physical contact occurs, then the referee should consider that one of two things may have occurred, presumably instead of, impeding. The two possibilities are limited to "charging" and "fairly charging off the ball". What about "pushing" or "holding" or "jumping"?

What is "fairly charged off the ball"? Well, this really means "charged in a way that would be considered fair had it occurred within playing distance of the ball", and 12.22 tells us that this should be treated as impeding. In short, this is actually another case where there is contact but the foul is impeding.


Don't get hung up on this. If the player is seemingly committing impeding and creates contact off the ball, and you as the referee sees the player commiting one of the other fouls you mentioned, then punish for that. If you don't see any other fouls, then think about what the passage is talking about. Clearly the passage wasn't intended for anyone to think that in those circumstances, no other foul could be committed.

[Ref Flunkie]

If the player being impeded causes the contact (i.e.-runs into the stationary player), the call is impeding (IDFK). If the player doing the impeding causes the contact, the call is an illegal charge/holding (DFK)

[BC_Ref]

My understanding that obstruction (impeding in normal-speak) does not involve contact. If we have contact, we have either holding, pushing, or an unfair charge. Is my understanding correct?


Generally, but you can always have "trivial" contact that isn't enough to warrant a DFK but is still impeding.

I've started seeing what the Brits call "blocking" in some of the youth games I handle. The local opinion is to call this as a form of holding. All too often, you have a larger defender blocking a smaller attacker, hoping for the attacker to "bounce" off them. Problem with this call is you can legitimately go for a DFK either for the attacker or defender depending on the circumstances (could the attacker avoid the defender, did the defender just slam on the brakes with the attacker right behind him, etc...). Makes for some fun PK decisions.

[jkc313]

If the player being impeded causes the contact (i.e.-runs into the stationary player), the call is impeding (IDFK). If the player doing the impeding causes the contact, the call is an illegal charge/holding (DFK)
I'm confused. Are you saying a player may run into a stationary opponent and not be called for charging that stationary opponent? How can a stationary opponent impede?

[ctsoccer13]

I'm confused. Are you saying a player may run into a stationary opponent and not be called for charging that stationary opponent? How can a stationary opponent impede?
I saw this last night on Fox Soccer. I'm not sure who was playing but basically the left back turned away from the forward with the ball. He was going up the wing when he got to half field there was a defender standing there. The back cut in with the ball and the defender stood still. The man with the ball collided with the guy at half field and the the guy that was standing there was called for the foul.

[DadOf6]

I saw this last night on Fox Soccer. I'm not sure who was playing but basically the left back turned away from the forward with the ball. He was going up the wing when he got to half field there was a defender standing there. The back cut in with the ball and the defender stood still. The man with the ball collided with the guy at half field and the the guy that was standing there was called for the foul.

What? How can a you impede the player who has the ball?

[ctsoccer13]

The guy that was standing still never even reacted to the cut back. He just stood there and the contact was initiated by the guy dribbling.

[IASocFan]

The guy that was standing still never even reacted to the cut back. He just stood there and the contact was initiated by the guy dribbling.

I would guess that the Ref saw it differently. Maybe he didn't watch the instant replay. Maybe he saw the defender move either his feet or arms to impede the attacking player.

[whitehound]

Generally, but you can always have "trivial" contact that isn't enough to warrant a DFK but is still impeding.

I've started seeing what the Brits call "blocking" in some of the youth games I handle. The local opinion is to call this as a form of holding. All too often, you have a larger defender blocking a smaller attacker, hoping for the attacker to "bounce" off them. Problem with this call is you can legitimately go for a DFK either for the attacker or defender depending on the circumstances (could the attacker avoid the defender, did the defender just slam on the brakes with the attacker right behind him, etc...). Makes for some fun PK decisions.
While we would all like to be able to raise our hands for IFK for trivial stuff..........you just cant do it amigo....There is nothing in the lOTG that says that you can decide to downgrade a foul from DFK to IFK because you think it is innocuous. I dont like it but that is the way it is.

[PVancouver]

I believe Ref Flunkie and BC Ref are referring to situations where the contact was not punishable by itself, but only because an attacker was impeded from playing the ball. The fact that there was some contact does not automatically upgrade the call to a DFK.

[Wahoo]

The guy that was standing still never even reacted to the cut back. He just stood there and the contact was initiated by the guy dribbling.

If thats what happened, it sounds like a charge ---- by the guy dribbling.

[whitehound]

I believe Ref Flunkie and BC Ref are referring to situations where the contact was not punishable by itself, but only because an attacker was impeded from playing the ball. The fact that there was some contact does not automatically upgrade the call to a DFK.
I am not sure what language or law you are citing. If a player runs between an attacker in an attempt to prevent him from playing the ball AND there is contact.........charging is the foul whether it is in the penalty area or center circle.
A completely different subject is an otherwise legal tackle commmited not in the pressence of the ball. COMPLETELY different and IFK. I think we are confusing two different things here.

[BC_Ref]

While we would all like to be able to raise our hands for IFK for trivial stuff..........you just cant do it amigo....There is nothing in the lOTG that says that you can decide to downgrade a foul from DFK to IFK because you think it is innocuous. I dont like it but that is the way it is.

If I think the contact is trivial, then I should be calling only an IFDK. Please note I didn't say innocuous, I said trivial. FIFA is pretty clear that even holding (which doesn't require careless, reckless,etc... conduct) is subject to the "triviality" concept.

What I'm thinking of here is where the contact is very light at the end. Technically, you have contact, so could have a hold. But it is trivial, so I go with the IDFK. I see "innocuous" contact that I call since it isn't that innocent in intent. That minor "hip check" which fortuously knocks the attacker off the ball (I see this in girls soccer. Pretty good hib check as well, but this isn't hockey)

[Statesman]

There's too many scenarios to address in this thread, so I'll just summarize how I make the call. The ball is not within playing distance unless otherwise noted...

1. If a player interferes with the movement of his opponent without making contact, IFK for impeding.

2. If a player interferes with the movement of his opponent and the momentum of the opponent causes contact between players, IFK for impeding.

3. If a player charges his opponent fairly (shoulder to shoulder), with the player causing the contact and the ball not within playing distance, IFK for a fair charge off the ball.

4. If a player charges his opponent illegally (not shoulder to shoulder), with the player causing the contact, DFK for an illegal charge regardless of where the ball is (subject to triviality if challenging for ball).

5. If a player steps into the path of an oncoming opponent and his action causes contact, whether by the stepping into act by the player or the momentum of the opponent, DFK for holding (if opponent is held up) or illegal charge (if opponent is knocked back).

6. If a player steps into the path of an oncoming opponent, but there is no contact and the act interferes with the opponent, IFK for impeding.

In all cases of contact the referee should judge the level of violence to determine the severity of the foul for triviality and misconduct. Even a slight brush of contact caused by the player that interferes enough with the opponent to prevent him from fairly challenging for the ball, or becoming involved with play, should still be considered a DFK.

In no circumstance should the referee downgrade the punishment from a DFK to an IFK just because the level of contact was light if the offense meets the criteria for a DFK foul.

[whitehound]

If I think the contact is trivial, then I should be calling only an IFDK. Please note I didn't say innocuous, I said trivial. FIFA is pretty clear that even holding (which doesn't require careless, reckless,etc... conduct) is subject to the "triviality" concept.

What I'm thinking of here is where the contact is very light at the end. Technically, you have contact, so could have a hold. But it is trivial, so I go with the IDFK. I see "innocuous" contact that I call since it isn't that innocent in intent. That minor "hip check" which fortuously knocks the attacker off the ball (I see this in girls soccer. Pretty good hib check as well, but this isn't hockey)
I would like you to cite exactly where FIFA tells us that severity of contact is a deciding factor in determining the type of FK. I hope you are not referring to the laws as they were written in the late 70's early 80's when I started refereeing. Things have changed quite a bit.